dead men do bleed

There is an old story that goes something like this: A man was seeing his psychiatrist believing he was already dead. The shrink did everything he could think of to help the man realize he was not dead. Nothing was working. So he told the man that dead people don't bleed, which the man seemed to accept. So the doctor took out a needle and poked the man who thought he was dead so that he started bleeding. After the crazy guy got over the pain of the sting, the doctor asked him what he thought now about his being dead. To which the man replied, "Well, I'll be, dead men do bleed after all."
Last night I watched two very intelligent men have a debate about the topics raised in the book, "The God Delusion." I highly recommend watching the full debate if you are a thinking person. One of the debaters was Richard Dawkins, a well known atheist and scientist. The other was a modern day CS Lewis or GK Chesterton named John Lennox. He is a mathematics Professor at Oxford and a very good thinker, and a Christian. The debate was very good.
But one of the amazing things about Dawkins, and to be expected perhaps from an intelligent person who takes his position as an atheist, is how he will bend and fit almost every argument to his position. He is clearly convinced of what he believes, and seeks to turn almost every argument by a Christian to his position, as again what one would expect of an intelligent atheist who is unwilling to bend. And that is my point; he is so unwilling to bend that he has painted himself into a logically lost position and does not see it. Even for all of his brains. He doesn't even seem to see that he has a worldview because to him what he believes seems so natural and right. But he does have one.
He even asks who created the creator in his book, which to me is a childish question, not because it is stupid, but because it is one that only very simple or young people might ask and for which the answer that God is uncreated and eternal seems overwhelmingly satisfying. And young people with Christian parents learn very early on. Also satisfying in that God is the only "thing" uncreated in the universe, and while that is mysterious, it is not illogical or impossible. But Dawkins seems unable to get his mind around this idea. Amazingly, while he will accept the idea of multiple universes existing and of some anthropic principle that says since we are here then the universe had to be such that it is to give rise to us, he won't accept an eternal being who created this place and us, etc. How is his idea better? To him it has something to do with because it explains something, rather than introducing a non-explainable being or answer (i.e., God). Huh?? I think he is simply desperate to replace God so he invents any naturalistic (meaning does not need a Supreme being) explanation. I have also heard him say in another debate or discussion, he might accept the idea of aliens putting us here originally. And this is better than God? Or different somehow? Wow.
He proves so clearly this verse: "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
2 Corinthians 4: 4
Richard Dawkins is one of many atheists today who claim that: "Well, I guess dead men do bleed."
See this link to watch the full debate and draw your own conclusions about what I am saying: http://fixed-point.org/index.php/video/35-full-length/164-the-dawkins-lennox-debate